Beauty: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Beauty » Beauty

Beauty

Page: 1 2 3 4

Beauty

coolazice
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 268

Posted 07/12/08 - 01:37 AM:	#21
I think our english language deceives us - beauty is not a property that an object 'has', but rather a relationship that one enters into with another being, be it an artificial 'being' or an organic one. The notions of harmony and balance are certainly well observed by many, but I would contend that noticing these features limits oneself from what the psychological experience of beauty can be at its fullest extent. Like Buber's 'Ich-Du', the relationship of true beauty renders details insignificant - it is the experience of the whole that is at play. For as soon as I compare my beauty to other beauties, I lose the very sense of beauty which got me to this state. Unfortunately, I think this defintion of beauty relegates most of humanity into a position where experiencing beauty is very difficult, and where most people have not had the opportunity to do so(the mind being in thrall of the particular and the Ich-Es relationship, which slowly takes over society). Or perhaps I am just homesick for love...
One of the greatest weaknesses in human nature is to be dogmatic about issues of which we are ignorant. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

philoepisteme
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 08, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 8

Posted 07/15/08 - 01:43 AM:	#22
coolazice wrote: beauty is not a property that an object 'has' I think this to be true. Consider Hume's approach. When we observe a beautiful object, say a simple sunset, and then consider what it that we perceive we can note color, shape, texture, sound, etc. If you consider a beautiful piece of music and an ugly piece of music the perceptions in themselves are no different. Both pieces of music produce sound, and they might also contain harmony (though Hume would not say that harmony is something we directly observe in an object but something we discover through relations between different observations). Beauty is not to be found our impressions of sensation of objects. Music that we find beautiful will be ugly to a listener from another country, though our sensory experiences are the same. The difference is in the relation between the music and our memory, or other social factors, many of which have been answered above. It does not appear that objects have any quality of beauty, just as objects have no quality of value; without our imposing it on them. So such qualities really come from us.
We can never really advance a step beyond ourselves. - David Hume

Gnist
Deranged Guitarist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 26, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 07/16/08 - 10:14 PM:	#23
alx429 wrote: These are all really interesting thoughts. My belief in the matter hasn't really been touched on at all yet, so here's my two cents. Let's remember that we are animals and we are organisms. To me, that means we can break down beauty into something much simpler and more objective than an analysis on how the human mind perceives levels of unity or harmony. With the mention of the sunset, I tried to break it down and ask myself why do we see those colors and get any sort of feeling from them. The answer I found was: stimulus. A sunset is overwhelming is it not? Why? Our brains interpret the intensity of stimulus and in this case the bright colors engulfing the enormity of the sky create a high level of stimulus. In order for our brain to process the intensity of this image, our brain cells have to fire at high rates which results in the feeling of being stimulated. The sensation in a lot of ways is similar to posting in this forum. We all do it because we feel stimulated. In order to think about things in the depths we discuss here requires the same sort of high level brain functioning. Our neurons have to fire at high rates and we feel stimulated. Playing sports isn't much different either. Let's not forget that when we see a beautiful sunset, what comes first is the feeling we get from it and then we label it as something. Visual stimulus = beautiful Mental stimulus = interesting Audio stimulus = harmonious Physical stimulus = fun Of course I'm simplifying this a great deal, but my point is that our mind receives and interprets the stimulus (whatever it is) and then, based off of the intensity of it, we label it. Imagine yourself in a room that is pitch black. You are receiving no visual stimulus and I would highly expect that to not be a very pleasant place to be. Now think about looking at a dark and cloudy day. Again, not pleasant. You are receiving little stimulus. Now contrast that image with a clear bright sunny day. The sky is bright blue, the sun is yellow and illuminating the colors of everything around you. That's a signifiantly more pleasant image because the amount of stimulus you are receiving is much higher. You brain cells have to fire at a higher rate to take it all in. We are pretty remarkable beings aren't we? I definitely think so. This is what I've been trying to put into words for sometime now. Thank you! It is, as you said, of course simplified, but my brain isn't functioning well enough (either too much or too little stimulation today already, I can't decide which) right now to justify trying to dream up anything worth staying awake any longer to post.
www.soundclick.com/averystemmler

Kurt_Godel
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2008
Location: Long Island, NY

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 528

Posted 07/17/08 - 07:58 AM:	#24
hyena in petticoat wrote: It's either the concept of beauty is subject to a person's perception and he is right, or, there is an absolute standard of beauty independent of subjective perception and he is wrong. But then again, is there an absolute standard of beauty independent of subjective perception? I think the concept of beauty plays and varies depending on context (culture, individual, utility, etc.) I believe there 'are' absolute standards for beauty at the lowest levels. These would be universally axiomatic concepts such as symmetry, harmony, balance etc. I also believe that as scribbler asked, beauty is very much subjective and objective at the same time. There is no contradiction in this, as easyjacksn pointed out. But more on this later. alex429, your analysis is somewhat accurate, since the translation of beauty is no doubt a biological process. However, I say 'somewhat' because a high level of stimulus is also involved with disturbing experiences like anger and pain. ___________________________________________________________________________ _______________ So what is beauty? In human terms, it is the interpretation of information whose reductionist characteristics not only contain what I earlier called 'universally axiomatic concepts' (henceforth UAC), but also combine synergetically to yield UAC at the holistic level. This is the reason why a sunset appears beautiful as a whole...because not only are its constituents elements considered individually are rich pieces of information (the vivid amber color, the sharp straight rays, the juxtaposition with clouds, the contrast with the darker outerlaying sky) but all these elements also come together in a way that is symmetrical. It might appear that I am simply replacing the term 'beauty' with the term 'universally axiomatic concepts', but this is not the case. Here's why. Beauty is a compound phenomenon. It is the result of a variety of elements and process, which I will attempt to describe below. On the other hand, universally axiomatic concepts are...well, axiomatic and universal. These are logical concepts that can be clearly isolated and defined, apply across the entire sphere of epistemology, and are irreducible (axiomatic). And since these concepts are axiomatic, all other information relies on them for definition and interaction. Hence these concepts (symmetry, balance, unity, identity etc.) are truly special. So it has been established that perceiving beauty is really processing information. I also make the claim that a lot of the beauty is innate in that information, as such making it objective. Of course, that's not the whole picture. The exact interpretation of that information is contingent upon the psychology of the individual (bringing into picture factors such as taste, upbringing, past experiences, biases etc.) which will undoubtedly 'color' the information. The brain is able to pick up axiomatic characteristics like symmetry and balance within the information (since its required to be able to do that for information processing). So everytime the brain encounters a piece of symmetry, it spits out a positive reaction (say, the release of endorphins). Everytime the brain encounters a piece of asymmetry, it spits out a negative reaction. Now if a visual/piece of music not only contains a multitude of UAC charactertics at the reductionist level, but also has them arranged in such a way so that UACs also manifest at the higher (holistic) levels will result in a multitude of postive reactions from the brain, thus evoking a pleasurable response and affirming the 'beauty' in the piece. This is how beauty is objective in that it depends on the information innate to the piece, and also subjective in that it also depends on the interpration of that information by an individual.

Mech
neo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 26, 2008

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 141

Posted 07/30/08 - 05:21 AM:	#25
Beauty:Where is it? Better question still - where isn't it? Everyone has a different viewpoint of what beauty is. Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Realism.

fgfgdftr
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2008

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 34

Posted 08/14/08 - 01:17 PM:	#26
Landlady wrote: When one looks at a sunset and calls it a beautiful sunset, where is this beauty located? Is the beauty in the sunset itself, or is it in the person looking at it? Does the sunset possess this beauty or does it simply act as a reflection of something already in a person? Can we say, likewise, that when someone says that something is beautiful he is (technically) mistaken? I have recently been introduced to the E-Prime concept which calls for the control of the verb 'to be' in this case 'is', therefore all statements which begin beauty is appear to me to be flawed, so yes I do believe that "when someone says that something is beautiful he is (technically) mistaken", and that we should acknowledge the fundamental subjectivity of all our perceptions and avoid statements such as 'beauty is'.

Gamble
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 16

Posted 08/26/08 - 06:48 PM:	#27
I don't think that you can locate the "Beauty". For example, I am a human, but if you asked a 5 year old where my "human" was they couldn't tell you. To use your example a sunset is beautiful. Beautiful describes the sunset. It is a personal interpertation of an object. The beauty doesn't exist in the sunset or in the person per say, but rather in the opinion correlating the two. Just like I'm only a human because your whole life you have known me and all things like me as humans. Neither you nor I have anything that makes me human, except for the correlation between the stimulus I put off and the way you interpret them. Likewise with beauty. The beauty in a sunset is the correlation between the stimulus it puts off, and your interpertation of the stimulus.
Hit 'em back first - Todd Peterson

copihue
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 02, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 09/05/08 - 05:47 AM:	#28
A few days ago I spoke to someone living in Mexico and I did complain about the miserable, rainy, stormy and cold weather here in London. She exclaimed: How beautiful, I would like to be there! I would have given a lot to experience the heat and light of Mexico's sun in return. And if we would live in the Caribbean and see a wonderful sunset every evening, would it still be so beautiful for us? Is a sunset in London with its dull, rainy weather not much nicer?

mutemaler
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2006

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 651

Posted 09/05/08 - 12:55 PM:	#29
fgfgdftr wrote: I have recently been introduced to the E-Prime concept which calls for the control of the verb 'to be' in this case 'is', therefore all statements which begin beauty is appear to me to be flawed, so yes I do believe that "when someone says that something is beautiful he is (technically) mistaken", and that we should acknowledge the fundamental subjectivity of all our perceptions and avoid statements such as 'beauty is'. I have a simple solution to this, how to avoid the tendency (or laziness, or just cultural upbringing) to bring what we call the attributes "into" the object through the use of the word "is" (where e-prime of course says they do not belong). Works for any attribute, you just need to rethink the language a bit. Simply turn the attribute into a verb (works with all words, also nouns). In other words not "the apple is red", but we red the apple. And similarly not "that is a beautiful sunset", but we beauty the sunset. We are very noun/attribute centered in our language (it reflects our worldview), but I can think of no reason not to use language in a verb centered way, and many advantages to doing just that (and they are other languages which do this). But, let's just put it to the test. I will beauty this: The wild geese fly across the long sky above. Their image is reflected upon the chilly water below. The geese do not mean to cast their image on the water. Nor does the water mean to hold the image of the geese. And then, to repeat the question from the original post: Where "is" it, the beauty? Or how or why can or would I beauty this? mutemaler Edited by mutemaler on 09/05/08 - 03:22 PM

Ist tot
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 10, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 09/10/08 - 08:32 AM:	#30
alx429 wrote: The answer I found was: stimulus. A sunset is overwhelming is it not? Why? Our brains interpret the intensity of stimulus and in this case the bright colors engulfing the enormity of the sky create a high level of stimulus. In order for our brain to process the intensity of this image, our brain cells have to fire at high rates which results in the feeling of being stimulated. The sensation in a lot of ways is similar to posting in this forum. We all do it because we feel stimulated. We are pretty remarkable beings aren't we? I definitely think so. I agree completely; this is the sort of objective part of recognising beauty; that we come to see it as being beautiful because it has this effect on us. And the subjective part can be seen to be how we individually judge things as being beautiful; ie, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we know why we think things are beautiful because they stimulate us; however, we could never objectively sum up what is unarguably beautiful and what isn't, or what beauty is. We know why we see things as being beautiful and what effect it has on us, but we can't ever judge definitely what beauty is and what is beautiful and what isn't. Take for instance red hair. Nearly the entire world seems to be at least disposed to mock people who have it, if not be repulsed by it, but myself, I think its the most beautiful hair colour you can naturally have, and I find it irresistably beautiful (think Botticelli's Venus & Mars, Mars is how I perceieve redheaded males!). Others completely disagree with me, yet they show exactly the same stimulated excitement over things like tattoos, blond hair, muscled men or women. Objectively, we could probably pin down what beauty does to us and why it makes us feel the way it does. But I don't think that could ever explain what it is as a universal concept. Beauty is in the eye of the stimulated beholder. [Edit] Projection plays a major (said to 90%) role in people who become obsessed with someone they find to be beautiful. I think, when people need to, they project the sort of qualities they want to find in a partner, however unrealistic they are, and then convert this into finding them "beautiful"; whereas people who hold real lasting realistic relationships do not project their idealistic qualities onto their partner and call that beauty, but they rather know what qualities that person has, and they love them for this; rather than projecting what they want onto someone and then loving them and finding them beautiful because of that.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.